Talk:Herod the Great

Edit war
WP:RS/AC does apply, claim stays at it was in the stable version. tgeorgescu (talk) 12:16, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

WP:RS/AC is a very important part of our WP:RULES. tgeorgescu (talk) 15:07, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

You have removed its lack of historicity from the WP:LEDE, and that's usually the only part a casual reader reads. How is that for neutrality? tgeorgescu (talk) 15:14, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

Regarding your charge that, then yes, if someone is removing WP:RS/AC from the article, I am hell-bent for keeping WP:RS/AC inside the article. WP:RS/AC is not in Wikipedic parlance. tgeorgescu (talk) 15:22, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

Not RS
I searched the book on Google, it does not seem to exist. No luck either for the names of the author + the word Bible. tgeorgescu (talk) 06:28, 25 July 2023 (UTC)


 * "the book"? 2603:6080:21F0:6140:D0F0:571B:2B23:BC18 (talk) 21:18, 26 December 2023 (UTC)


 * See . Coming back to what I said, I can now find that book at, but there still absolutely no indication that it would be WP:RS. tgeorgescu (talk) 21:50, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

Content editing concerns
User:tgeorgescu, I'm happy to talk productively and according to Wikipedia standards for communication between editors when you are. A4M2 Alaska4Me2 (talk) 17:25, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
 * You were censoring sourced content on the grounds of a deceptive excuse claiming your actions to be for the sake of neutrality. Tgeorgescu reverting you was the correct action, then you want to suddenly talk "productively" after the page is put in full protection? I oppose your edits unless you have a reliable academic source that saids otherwise. Jerium (talk) 18:02, 6 August 2023 (UTC)


 * My edits were based solely on including appropriate NPOV wording and ridding those sections of unencyclopedic and unsupported POV wording, nothing else. As for whether or not the other editor's reverts were correct, it appears more than one administrator has disagreed with that assessment.  If you'd like to discuss POV vs. NPOV and what makes for good encyclopedic wording, I'm happy to go there with you. A4M2 Alaska4Me2 (talk) 21:15, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia isn't censored, and if you can't provide a reliable source that's contrary to already sourced content, then the current version is already in NPOV. Jerium (talk) 21:37, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm getting the feeling you're not interested in discussing or collaborating. I'll wait to discuss with other contributors to this page as well as tgeorgescu.  Good day to you. A4M2 Alaska4Me2 (talk) 22:06, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I am collaborating, just waiting on you to provide a reliable source that saids otherwise to the content you tried to remove, then the page can be updated. Jerium (talk) 22:19, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

Most modern biographers of Herod, and probably a majority of biblical scholars, dismiss Matthew's story as a literary device.

Got changed into:

Herod also appears in the Christian Gospel of Matthew as the ruler of Judea who orders the Massacre of the Innocents at the time of the birth of Jesus, although most Herod biographers do not believe that this event occurred.

Got changed into:

In the green version WP:RS/AC gets applied; in the red version it does not get applied. tgeorgescu (talk) 10:12, 7 August 2023 (UTC)


 * I support Tgeorgescu position. We need to show what reliable sources say, not avoid offending people who don’t like what they say.—Ermenrich (talk) 12:48, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Yep, the modern biographer version is obviously the NPOV encyclopedic one. Iskandar323 (talk) 14:16, 7 August 2023 (UTC)


 * The issue use of words like most "most" and "majority". Both are quantitative and require an actual counting of most or all historians and Bible scholars for their conclusions.  Those things are not in the sources being used.  Because there is no census or vote taken, and there is no way to determine such a number by the sources or us in any other way, those words should not be in this encyclopedia article.  A4M2 Alaska4Me2 (talk) 17:24, 7 August 2023 (UTC)


 * After all this fuss, have you even bothered to read what WP:RS/AC says? It says nothing about censuses. We don't have to obey your rules, you have to obey our WP:RULES.
 * It says that the claim of academic consensus (majority/minority) has to be WP:V in WP:RS. It does not say that the author of the WP:RS should take a census. tgeorgescu (talk) 20:02, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
 * My comment about taking a survey or census was to make a point. I never thought it was policy. A4M2 Alaska4Me2 (talk) 14:22, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
 * You turned violating WP:RS/AC into a habit. That's why the level 4 NPOV warning.
 * The irony is that the author of the WP:RS/AC claim is a Conservative Christian, and believes that the event actually happened. tgeorgescu (talk) 19:40, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

"Herod I, the Great"
Does it really make sense to call him "Herod I" when only one king named just "Herod" ruled the kingdom? I am aware that he had a son who we have indexed as Herod II, but seeing as Herod II never held any political power or office, it seems a bit redundant to qualify Herod as 'the first'. "Herod the Great" would hypothetically disambiguate which Herod is being referred to just as much as "Herod I" does. Emolu (talk) 15:21, 7 August 2023 (UTC)


 * I agree that the Herod series is a bit muddled and confusing, but both the Jewish Encyclopedia and Encyclopedia Judaica have Herod entered as Herod I, so it is hard to right off as an established name. Iskandar323 (talk) 17:02, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

The Matthew Issue
I've read through this discussion concerning the "massacre of the innocents" in the gospel of Matthew. It is my thought that it should be changed to reflect that the incident is mentioned by Matthew, without bias as to whether it did or not. If necessary, a section on this topic can be created within the article to reflect the positive and negative. This new trend of treating the gospels as though they weren't books of history due to their dual religious application is silly. Trusted Greek and Roman material abounds with religion and superstition. It doesn't nullify their credibility, and it shouldn't nullify the gospel's credibility. There is not a single secondary source who has, or can, definitively prove that the incident did not occur. It doesn't matter how many authors are cited. It's not definitive fact. It's one hundred percent speculation that is contradicted by a primary source. Matthew mentions the event. Unless it can be proven that his testimony of the event is erroneous or fictitious, which it cannot, then it is primary source evidence of the occurrence. Not only does Matthew mention it, but he does so in a context where Herod's behavior was consistent with such a cruel and arbitrary temperament. During his final three months of life, he awaited permission to put a third son to death for attempted patricide. He also gathered all the principal men of the country together into the amphitheater to be put to death as soon as he died so the country would sincerely mourn after his death, which Matthew also briefly alludes to as part of his context, giving it some validation by providing a historical context. 71.85.10.131 (talk) 11:48, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Your opinion does not trump mainstream Bible scholarship.
 * Also, proof is for math and whisky. tgeorgescu (talk) 12:29, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Is this some kind of web forum for people to argue? Did you really just disparage "proof" on an encyclopedia website? What's wrong with you? Are you an atheist or something? Is it your goal to retain negative opinions about Bible material in order to degrade it or something?
 * Let's be clear, it is an opinion to say that Matthew's account is likely fictitious, no matter who you're citing. The inclusion of the statement as it appears is inflammatory and serves no purpose in an article about Herod except to denigrate the integrity of the Bible account. To say that Matthew mentions Herod as having committed the act is a factual statement. He did say it. If the addendum is left off, it is wide open to individual interpretation about its historical accuracy, which is not the subject of this article.
 * Wikipedia has a reputation for being junk scholarship. You're contributing to that reputation. I'm trying to enhance it. AlexFrazier (talk) 13:10, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
 * WP:MAINSTREAM, WP:CENSOR, WP:FRINGE and user:tgeorgescu.
 * As Bart Ehrman and Francesca Stavrakopoulou repeatedly and publicly stated, Ancient history is not about "proof" but a probability judgment about "what probably happened". tgeorgescu (talk) 13:22, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
 * WTF are you talking about!? Nevermind. Are you an administrator? If so, make it known clearly. If you are not, say so. You're breaking several rules, and defying the whole point of this site. I'm putting that comment all over social media. If this is what Wikipedia is, then it's trash. They'll never get another penny from me. Unlike most, I'm part of the two percent who donated. AlexFrazier (talk) 13:29, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
 * No, I am not an administrator. But I consider myself the eyes and the ears of the administrators.
 * E.g. you have removed information sourced to a WP:RS, presumably because your own opinion trumps WP:RS. It does not work that way. You did that thrice: two times uninterrupted by me, and a third time after my revert. tgeorgescu (talk) 13:43, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Well, I'm not sure who it is you think you are, but . ..
 * I made three changes.
 * 1) I removed the speculative statement that Matthew's account is fictitious. It's not a proven fact. It's biased and inflammatory. The statement violates two codes of conduct; viz. to "Strive towards accuracy and verifiability in all its work," not, "Deliberately introducing biased, false, inaccurate or inappropriate content," and in removing it without appropriate discussion, you have violated a code of conduct yourself; viz., "repeated arbitrary or unmotivated removal of any content without appropriate discussion [...]" These codes of conduct apply not only to articles, but to discussion boards such as this one, where you promote content absent proof with scorn: "Ancient history is not about "proof" but a probability judgment about "what probably happened," and, "proof is for math and whisky." Note: "This Universal Code of Conduct (UCoC) defines a minimum set of guidelines of expected and unacceptable behaviour. It applies to everyone who interacts and contributes to online and offline Wikimedia projects and spaces. [...] It applies to all Wikimedia projects, technical spaces, in-person and virtual events, as well as the following instances: [...] Private, public and semi-public interactions," and, "Discussions of disagreement and expression of solidarity across community members."
 * 2) I removed the statement that Appian dates Herod's appointment to king by the Romans to 39 BCE. Appian does no such thing. This is not an opinion. This is a substantiated fact. Removing the statement was in the interest of "accuracy" and "verifiability." In this instance as well, you undid the change, putting your incorrect statement ahead of documentable fact. You violated the code of conduct.
 * 3) I changed the comment that the interval from Pompey to Herod ends in 36 BCE. It does not. I provided primary and secondary sources. If I understand you correctly, you changed it back again arbitrarily, since that's the only change I made you hadn't undone when last I checked. You violated the code of conduct.
 * Now, I'm not going to fight with you. You aren't a person of authority. Your just a person who contributed poor information and incorrect facts, and you're trying to defend what you've written. That much is clear. From what I can tell, you have undone pretty much every change anyone has attempted over the last couple of years. The list of your reversions goes back about three or four 50-page pages.
 * I WILL make changes to this article. If you continue to undo the changes in direct violation of the code of conduct without showing clear justification for it, I will find a way to have you removed from this site. The code is quite specific that it holds no person in higher or lower esteem due to any time they've had editing, or even in an administrative capacity. This site is about the furthering of knowledge. I have been researching this topic for almost thirty years. I have every right on this public space, within the bounds of the site creator's intended objective, to improve upon this article that is loaded with misinformation.
 * AlexFrazier (talk) 15:26, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
 * It is not a speculative statement that Matthew's account is fictitious, it is the opinion of the majority of historians. If you continue to remove that statement of WP:RS/AC, you will be reverted.--Ermenrich (talk) 15:28, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
 * "the majority" requires quantification. Unless someone has sought out every biographer who has ever written on Matthew's account and expressed, in the majority, the opinion that it is fictitious, the statement is garbage. It is also inflammatory to Christians. It implies that their Bible is inaccurate. Both of these things are a violation of the code of conduct. It is sufficient to state that Matthew mentions Herod in relation to the event. The opinion of its integrity is not germane to an article on Herod. To continue to revert it to accomplish nothing more than to disparage the reputation of the Bible is nothing short of an attack on Christians, and in direct violation of the code of conduct. I WILL change it when I have time. And I WILL change it back if you revert it. My reasons for doing so will as stated above. AlexFrazier (talk) 16:06, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
 * &mdash;that's a plain vanilla statement for mainstream historians and mainstream Bible scholars. If you think that the mainstream historians of Bible/Judaism/Christianity agree that the Bible is inerrant or infallible: that's by far not the case. Most of them can tell you by rote 100 mistakes from the Bible. tgeorgescu (talk) 17:43, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Sorry, you do not make the WP:RULES. We have the rule WP:RS/AC, please stick to it, or you will be reverted.
 * How was that saying? "Persians love their leaders, Greeks their laws." We behave like Ancient Greeks, not like Ancient Persians.
 * If you are here to deny mainstream history and mainstream Bible scholarship in the name of your own research, you're in the wrong place.
 * Your original research is no match for the research of full professors from WP:CHOPSY who agree that the event is fictitious.
 * See e.g. That's a quite recent source from Princeton University Press. Can your own research match such publisher? Or have you been published at all on this issue? tgeorgescu (talk)  15:59, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, my research can match them. I will be published soon enough. Secondary sources that make false statements aren't reliable sources. Just because you cite a book, that doesn't make the information accurate. This is supposed to be about the furtherance of knowledge. Seems to me that it's really just about you protecting what you wrote. The article has a lot of mistakes. It needs to be fixed. AlexFrazier (talk) 16:07, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
 * If you are here to correct the alleged mistakes of WP:CHOPSY full professors, you are in the wrong place. Reason: WP:VERECUNDIAM.
 * I see that you have been blocked from this page. Anyway, your allegation that Magness and all her peers publish is ipse dixit. We have no reason to believe you. We only believe reputable sources, in this case books by full professors. And I don't mean full professors of oncology or engineering. tgeorgescu (talk)  16:56, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Forgive me if I'm over-reaching, but this seems like a total misrepresentation of Ehrman's view at the least. Texts such as the Bible, which purport a historical narrative, should be accepted as primary sources like any other. Like other primary sources, they are biased, often lacking justification for certain statements, and should be viewed in their context. Ehrman has also stressed over and over that it matters that points of history were attested in the Bible—that the Bible is a source, if a very flawed source that shouldn't be relied upon on its own, for those historical events. It is not as if the text was fabricated from whole cloth in the 4th century. It likely does not exist in its original form in almost any passage, but we should not the forces that otherwise go into writing history did not exist as part of the creation of the books of the Bible. Remsense  聊  19:00, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
 * "Also, proof is for math and whisky" For whisky I get it, but when was mathematics ever concerned about proof? Axioms are based on assumptions. Dimadick (talk) 18:38, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, and if you accept those axioms, which is analogous to having views about the greater world, you can prove other statements from a certain set of axioms. I am confused what rhetorical point is being attempted here. Remsense  聊  18:54, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
 * "It is not a speculative statement that Matthew's account is fictitious" A more verbose way of stating that Matthew was making-up crap for its gullible audience. The Gospel of Luke contradicts Matthew's every claim. Dimadick (talk) 18:39, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
 * keep a civil tone - nobody cares what your personal and offensive views are 2603:6080:21F0:6140:D0F0:571B:2B23:BC18 (talk) 21:21, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
 * This is not my personal opinion. Per the article Nativity of Jesus:
 * "Many modern scholars consider the birth narratives unhistorical because they are laced with theology and present two different accounts which cannot be harmonised into a single coherent narrative."
 * "Only the Gospels of Matthew and Luke offer narratives regarding the birth of Jesus....they agree on very little. Joseph dominates Matthew's and Mary dominates Luke's, although the suggestion that one derives from Joseph and the other from Mary is no more than a pious deduction. Matthew implies that Joseph already has his home in Bethlehem, while Luke states that he lived in Nazareth.
 * In Matthew the angel speaks to Joseph, while Luke has one speaking to Mary. Only Luke has the stories surrounding the birth of John the Baptist, the census of Quirinius, the adoration of the shepherds and the presentation in the Temple on the eighth day; only Matthew has the wise men, the star of Bethlehem, Herod's plot, the massacre of the innocents, and the flight into Egypt.The two itineraries are quite different. According to Matthew, the Holy Family begins in Bethlehem, moves to Egypt following the birth, and settles in Nazareth, while according to Luke they begin in Nazareth, journey to Bethlehem for the birth, and immediately return to Nazareth. The two accounts cannot be harmonised into a single coherent narrative or traced to the same Q source, leading scholars to classify them as "special Matthew" (or simply the M source) and "special Luke" (the L source)."
 * We have two contradictory accounts, and both seem to be fictitious. Dimadick (talk) 09:07, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
 * We have two contradictory accounts, and both seem to be fictitious. Dimadick (talk) 09:07, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

Anyway, his claim is that the WP:RS/AC from 150 years ago trumps the WP:RS/AC from 26 years ago and the WP:RS/AC from 3 years ago. I find this claim a ridiculous argument.

And I agree that all historical/archaeological research ever is to some extent wrong (or imperfect). But that's not what he means.

He got caught WP:SOCKing. Maybe he was offended, but for liberal Christianity this isn't a reason to get offended. Writing here about Bible and history offends biblical literalists, they must think that we are some sort of devilish conspiracy hell-bent to deny the truth of the Bible. tgeorgescu (talk) 09:06, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
 * "to deny the truth of the Bible" I don't think that there is much truth there to talk about. Archaeology undermined its credibility long ago. Dimadick (talk) 15:07, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
 * That's correct, but regardless of that, his whole approach that mainstream scholarship from 150 years ago trumps present-day mainstream scholarship was doomed from the start. His many mistakes made his banning very easy, but even if he behaved impeccably, he never stood a chance. Since he has cast his lot with scholars who died more than 120 years ago, he naturally sees present-day Bible professors as . The problem with that is that Wikipedia as a whole certainly does not share such assumption. Since that is his most cherished assumption in this matter, he could not really say something else. The statement that we should stick to relatively recent scholarship, he considers it as part of a plot. tgeorgescu (talk) 07:28, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

Herod in the talmud
The Talmud (Bava Batra 3b -4a) talks at length about Herod's origins as a slave, his rise to power, discussion with the sage Baba ben Buta and subsequent construction of the Second Temple. Perhaps that should be included here? Aaron Shalom Jonas (talk) 00:44, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

Strabo
Relying on Strabo (I have not seen any other reasoning in the sources) is problematic because his writings about what happened in Judea include errors. He calls Hyrcanus II by the name "Herodes" and thinks that King Herod was his descendant and was also a high priest (Geographica, book 16, chapter 2, section 46). He thinks that Jews (Geography, same chapter) avoid eating meat and calls Shabbat (and not Yom Kippur) the "fasting day" (Geography, same chapter). I can add more. Contrary to his words, the Adomites were a Semitic people who lived before the arrival of the Nebatim. They maintained relations with the Nabateans and the Jews with whom they lived in the neighborhood and in Idumea they converted in the days of Yochanan Hyrcanus I. By the way, Herod's biographer of Damascus spread another story about Herod's ancestors that Josephus rejected. It is better to stay with the reference to the nearest dynasty. Therefore, I performed a removal. --שמי (2023) (talk) 13:27, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Secular viewpoint
Mainstream historians do have a secular viewpoint, unless expressly indicated otherwise. This includes mainstream Bible professors. Since mainstream history, including history of the Bible and Christianity, is not a sectarian discipline. Mainstream Bible scholars do not cater to true believers. tgeorgescu (talk) 04:22, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
 * It's not a question of catering to anyone's particular beliefs. The only issue is academic/journalistic honesty. Making a statement that includes the claim "most ____" should be baked up by authority that supports the claim. The cite included here does not support that claim. At best, to be in agreement with the cited authority, the article should say, "some" -- but it's clear that this page is being controlled by true believers of a different sort. Btsom (talk) 19:28, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Btsom, while I agree that "most experts" requires a specific citation, you needn't cast aspersions of bad faith. — Remsense  诉  19:32, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
 * It is cited to a specific citation. It also doesn't say "most experts", it says "most Herod biographers." The text cited also says "and probably most Biblical scholars", but that keeps getting removed by people who dislike the word "probably."--Ermenrich (talk) 21:03, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Ermenrich, I just meant "most experts" statements in general, per WP:RS/AC. Apologies for not being adequately clear. — Remsense  诉  22:40, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the confusion .—Ermenrich (talk) 22:54, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

Revert
The IP is right, is highly spurious information. tgeorgescu (talk) 01:34, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

sarcophagus
The sarcophagus pictured appears to be tan, and not shattered. Herod's sarcophagus is purplish red and fragmented. Is this the true sarcophagus pictured? Tnyttym (talk) 04:51, 14 May 2024 (UTC)